Chakras and the Third Eye myth 04:41 Oct 16 2011
Times Read: 549
I thought this conversation very interesting. Deals with things I know but most not around before the 80s or 90s take many things said as truth and don't know the source of various ideas, many of them purely bunk. An example is the Indigo Children and Crystals etc. I could rant on that one. The lady who first postulated the theory of the Indigos has a disclaimer on her website by her publishers, lol. So much misinformation is out and about now it's ridiculous. Anyway here is the debate. There's more on the website.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's no-one's fault that so many myths about meditation, chakras and the like are propagated, the whole field is a co-dependent web of half-truths and wrong meanings that will deceive most people who don't have the opportunity to research the facts.
The 'third eye' is a perfect example; yes, it's certainly written about, particularly here in the West, but it doesn't have any history at all in Buddhism and Hinduism – the traditions that the idea is meant to have been taken from - and it's actually a Western invention, conceived within the last hundred years. There are, of course, many meditation methods that do focus on the brow chakra (Ajna), and these work very well, but it's never called the 'third eye' in authentic traditions, and it's not a requirement that you must open it before you can reach enlightenment.
In traditional texts, chakras aren't associated with the wealth of character information, sounds, emotions, auras, or hardly anything else that New Age literature, now claiming to divulge 'ancient methods', says about them. There are no incenses, emotions, planets, crystals or metals associated with them; there's no 'opening' chakras, and nor is the third eye found in Aikido or karate, as is often claimed; and although again the Ajna is sometimes used in Zen, it isn't the 'third eye' or the main focus of practice. In fact, Zen places the 'vital energy centre' (the Hara) in the abdomen, which is considered to be the seat of the heart-body-mind.
There's certainly a lot of symbolism regarding this point on the forehead in the East, though none of it relates to a 'third eye'. In Buddhism, some statues of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas from the second and third centuries wear an 'urna', a concave circular dot sometimes shown as a jewel, which is an auspicious mark made by a whorl of white hair on the forehead between the eyebrows of an enlightened being.
The closest we can get to opening anything is in Shivaism, one of the earliest Indian denominations, dating back to the first centuries BC. Here at least we find reference to an eye, as the Shivaite term 'Udvamanti' literally means 'opening of the eye', as a name for the emergence of infinite consciousness in a meditator, gained by his or her focus on their inner consciousness, recognising the two to be one and the same. But, ask any traditional practitioner of Shivaism about the pineal and the idea of opening a third eye and he will no doubt laugh heartily.
So where did the 'third eye' concept first begin?
The eighteenth-century philosopher Rene Descartes spent many hours studying the pineal gland, trying to deduce its effects, and he called it 'the seat of the soul', a point of connection between mind and body. His reason for believing this was that he saw it as being unique in the human brain, in that it didn't appear to be duplicated in its right and left sides. However, with the aid of modern microscopes we can see that it is in fact divided into two hemispheres.
Probably the first person to use the term 'third eye', and also to use it in reference to the pineal gland, was the scientist Nils Holmgren, in 1918. Holmgren coined the term after examining the pineal glands of frogs and dogfish sharks (but not people) and discovering cells on the tip of the gland that looked like retinal cone cells, which is in no way saying that the organ had any kind of a spiritual connection as a 'third eye'.
However, a few years before Holmgren the Victorian 'Theosophical Society' had decided that the pineal gland was not just important, as Descartes had thought, but that it was the key to spiritual awakening. All well and good - but for anyone not familiar with Theosophy, it's worth bearing in mind that its co-founder, H.P.Blavatsky, is the source of many of today's 'occult' myths, such as Ascended Masters, astral travel, the aura, seven planes of reality, the evolution of consciousness, the third eye, the Akashic Record, remote viewing, the 'silver cord' in OOBEs, Atlantis, Lemuria ('Mu') and a whole host of other things which she claimed to have been told by her very own 'Ascended Masters', via letters that floated down from heaven onto the tables around which she held seances.
Sadly for Blavatsky, an over-eager aide at one such seance opened a secret panel in which the pre-written letters, later to be revealed, were placed, thus giving the game away – and all in the presence of paranormal investigators who were there to scrutinise her dealings. Blavatsky was an opportunistic fraud and not a very good one.
Although Blavatsky claimed that her work was, in large part, channelled from great spiritual masters (such as Jesus) in the beyond, it is unfortunate that they didn't seem as interested in peace and tolerance as we would have expected, but instead seemed to support Theosophy's racist ideals. Blavatsky's book, 'The Secret Doctrine', uses a variety of derogatory terms for Africans and other ethnic groups, such as the “degenerate descendants of the Atlanteans”; saying that the, “yellow, red, brown, and black races are abject and savage”, whereas “the Aryan race” represents “the apex of physical and intellectual evolution.” Other Theosophists who came after Blavatsky were also keen to promote its racist, anti-Semitic thrust, in part to help justify Europe's brutal colonisation of Africa, India and the Far East.
Theosophy and its beliefs spread quickly, not just amongst the American and English ex-patriots in India, but also to a variety of Indian thinkers; and sadly too, to a variety of charlatans who wanted to get in on the popularity that the Hindu faith and all things Eastern were accruing in the West, where support for Blavatsky was easy to court.
It was good business sense for Theosophical beliefs to be taken on by local teachers - and ancient Hindu knowledge, gained over thousands of years of insight and direct experience, was left behind for much more attractive (and easier to practise) forms of spirituality and meditation; sadly, these were invented by Blavatsky, Olcott and others, mere months before. The respected Swami Sivananda, for instance, read many Theosophical works, and its terminology is found throughout his writings as the alternative translation of Sanskrit words, giving Theosophy a provenance that it does not deserve.
According to Blavatsky, after man developed through a series of 'Root races' over some 3 billion years (including stages where he was variously boneless, four-armed, three-eyed, or even one-eyed) his 'third eye' retreated into the lower centre of his brain, resulting in the loss of his spiritual capabilities.
"...The “deva eye” exists no more for the majority of mankind. The third eye is dead, and acts no longer; but it has left behind a witness to its existence. This witness is now the pineal gland..."
"...The double-faced became the one-faced, and the eye was drawn deep into the head and is now buried under the hair. During the activity of the inner man (during trances and spiritual visions) the eye swells and expands.
Trying to sum up Blavatsky's entire, tortuous explanation of the growth and loss of our 'third eye' would take far more room than I'd like to give it here so, for those interested parties, take a look at HPB's 'Secret Doctrine', Volume 2, pages 289 to 298 for more details
Leadbeater and Chakras
One of Blavatsky's followers, an English clergyman called Reverend C. W. Leadbeater, is responsible for a good deal of the distorted ideas about chakras that we now have in the West. Leadbeater claimed not only to be able to enter the so-called 'astral plane' at will, but also to have suddenly one day gained the ability to examine every one of a person's 'former incarnations' in detail - without, as he said himself, having any previous experience of doing so before. Leadbeater also claimed that not only was he himself an incarnation of the legendary King Asoka of India (who was responsible for the adoption of Buddhism in India in the second century), but also King Gashtasp of Persia, who “upheld the mission of the Zoroasterian religion.”
But, surely those academics of the time who were aware of the real chakra systems were up in arms about Leadbeater's invention and were quick to decry it? Absolutely: in his book, 'Kundalini, The Mother of the Universe' (1930), Rishi Singh Gherwal writes:
"...The harm to Yoga philosophy that has been done by misinformation thru the "Theosophist" Rev. C. W. Leadbeater is indeed very great. Most readers of Theosophical and Occult literature believe Rev. Leadbeater to be a friend to the Hindus, but after reading his books, "The Inner Life" and "The Chakras", I am forced to say by the information he has given, he is the greatest enemy of Yoga philosophy, and has given a bad name to Yoga."
But despite this and other protestations over the last hundred years or so, Leadbeater's system survives and still influences New Age authors the world over today.
The final 'proof' of the third eye concept was given to us in the 1950s by Lobsang Rampa. Rampa was allegedly a Buddhist monk, whose book 'The Third Eye' gave post-war Europe a whole new interest in the occult and meditation, with his stories of life in a Tibetan monastery. Sadly, eventually it was discovered that the author was in fact one Cyril Henry Hoskin, born in Devon, England, the son of a plumber. When confronted with the truth Hoskin wasn’t at all phased, but claimed that although he may have been born Cyril Henry Hoskin, his body had been taken over by Rampa’s spirit. So, according to him, all the information he had written was true.
Obviously, in light of the above we all have to be very careful when we read modern accounts of subjects like the above and accept them as true
Quote:
While chakras and especially the third eye were nowhere near as over-celebrated as by new age philosophies, and were certainly not "balanced, healing" and such, the ajna being the third eye isnt in fact all that uncommon of a notion in Hinduism, and especially, as you mentioned, with Shaivites.
The Shiavite 'connection; isn't one, see above - and the introduction of the third eye into Hindu lore took place after 1890, there was no mention of it as a term before then within Hinduism. Hinduism was two thousand years without a third eye, one hundred years with. It is now common for the reasons stated above. If you should find any mention of it before then there are many scholars, both Buddhist and Hindu, who would be interested in your findings. There is the Ajna, of course; but as a third eye, not at all. And remember too that we're not simply talking about the 'third eye'as being representative of the Ajna, but also that it's alleged connection to the pineal is spurious and modern.
Quote:
However, there were generalized relationships - the mooladhara being the seat of the self and the kundalini shakti, the ajna being the third eye, although as you said, opening it, "seeing through it", etc, were never emphasized, the sahasara being the most subtle chakra and the gateway to divinity, all existed as concepts since the conception of the concept.
The 'seat of the self' and the most important chakra varies, depending on the form of Tantra you practise, again as I said. The ideas now currently accepted as being the actions of chakras, their shape, size and position were not present at the beginning of the concept, hence the post above. The single original system split into factions over a period of a thousand years, slowly developing differences that are still present today. You will be hard pushed to find anyone truly practising with chakras in the original sense.
Quote:
Diksha was always given in the form of energizing the sahasara or ajna chakra, and in the latter days and today diksha is also given by energizing the heart.
There are many, many kinds of Diksha, all with different purposes. It's used sometimes, not 'always', to energise chakras, yes certainly, no quibble there (though usually only six chakras are thought of in chakra Jagran Diksha, not seven or four as in other branches of Tantra).
Quote:
While chakras were not celebrated or indulged in anywhere near the way they are today, they did have subtle defined functions even then, and the notion of a third eye, while not centric to text, does indeed date back quite far and was not an uncommon notion at all in practice, and still isnt.
Once again, although there certainly is use of the Anja dating back to the earliest usage, there is no mention of the third eye in this context at all until Theosophy. Nothing, apart from the slight word connection in Shivaism.
I do understand that as you said, you haven't researched this, but should you do so I would be very interested to see any mentions you should find of the third eye in Hinduism or Buddhism in the spiritual context used today before 1890 (forgetting Descartes).
It has no history in Shivaism at all unfortunately.
I appreciate your honesty, I hope I can therefore add to your knowledge. Yet again I'm sorry that this should be so long. I began with Indian Tantra in the form of Shivaism (with a slight leaning towards Vishnuism), and currently practice the Tibetan version, so I can easily point you to relevant texts. There is no third-eye anywhere in the oral or written traditions of Tantra or Shivaite tradition; it's simple to prove textually because we have all of the texts of Tantra to look at any time we choose; orally, there is no evidence in any area of India or Swat that there is an exclusive off-shoot to the tradition which contains the third-eye.
The Vedas - the very first texts on chakras and meditation anywhere in the World - began as an oral tradition that goes back to at least 1,500 BC, with a codified written text appearing about 350 BC. I and tens of other people (both for and against the idea of the third eye) have trawled the Vedas and its family off-shoots and sub-schools in search of any reference to it and there is nothing that comes close. The reason why so many people have put so much time and effort into finding some hitherto unknown oral tradition (I've searched for it myself for 20 years, others much longer) where the third eye might appear, again because of Theosophy.
Remembering that Blavatsky was not only caught out as a fraud three times (once actually forging one of the 'channeled' letters she said she received), and that she has been proven wrong on the origination and evolution of man, cosmology, science, and is also alarmingly racist and anti-Semitic, she also came up with the idea that there was a 'mystery language' used by Masters, and a secret book where any true seeker could find proof of all the things she said about chakras and the third eye. The book she said was extant in every family home in Tibet and well-known by everyone. No such book has ever been known to any Tibetan and no evidence at all of the mystery language has ever been found.
Blavatsky's/Leadbeater's chakra system is called the 'secondary chakras', and traditional tantra, 'primary chakras'. They differ in many ways, for example (I've taken these quotes from entirely neutral sites):
"...The secondary chakras are the chakras described by Theosophy, the New Age movement, Christopher Hills, Barbara Brennan, and many others. Unlike the archetypal Primary chakras they have a specific form (usually described as vortexes of energy), colour and a specific precise location in the auric bodies (although these qualities will vary according to the individual)..."
"...A distinction has to be made between primary and secondary chakras, as these are very often confused. The primary chakras are the inner chakras, i.e. the chakras as described by the original Tantra (essentially Yoga and/or Hindu traditions), which can only be accessed through yogic practice. These chakras are archetypal and do not have a form; the form they are represented as in Tantric literature is stylized and symbolic...."...We will call this one the “Primary” chakra system, as it is known. For the sake of clarity and dispelling some confusion, we will make a simple “comparison” of this system with the one most commonly known in the West, which we can generically describe as the “New Age” chakra system, since there are an infinite number of names and variations of this one as well. We will call this one the “Secondary” chakra system, as this appears to be the accepted term.
"..For the sake of clarity, since these two systems APPEAR to be similar in “location” and “number of chakras”, the following table illustrates the rough equivalence of the two.Please remember that the two systems refer to entirely different philosophies, objectives and methods, so they are not really “equivalent”. As you can see, it is easy to “equate” the two systems, believing that just the names of the Chakras change, but they are quite different in philosophy, objectives and methods of accessing or "opening" them..."
People have been up in arms about the Theosophical system since it was first published, and it still holds sway here in the west, but, original it's not.
"How come the third eye, or an energy centre at the place thereof, is referred to by several religions and practices? Even in between ones that have no historical connection?
There is no doubt that there is a chakra at the brow, but again it has no connection to the pineal, or the Third Eye, as described in Western Occultism (Theosophy). This connection was made solely by Theosophy, and it is the source of tens of myths that we in the west still believe in today concerning chakras. It's a bit of a giveaway when our modern chakra system in the west bears very little resemblance to that of the East, and that the man who invented our western chakra system (Olcott) had no experience of meditation, or knowledge of the true, original system - and yet invented it in a matter of weeks, whilst at the same time allegedly learning how to see atoms, travel astrally to any time or place, connect with Jesus and any other person he desired, all with no previous abilities.
The Third Eye really doesn't appear in any form of ancient tradition before 1890 and the writings of HP Blavatsky. That it did become widespread as an idea and became reabsorbed into some traditions is an unfortunate effect of the fame of Theosophy in the Victorian era. It doesn't exist, as described, anywhere in Hinduism or Buddhism, which Blavatsky claimed it did.
Re: Chakras and the Third Eye myth
I stumbled across your post about the Third Eye, and thought it may be useful to give you a bit of information. First, please go read the Siva Samhita, Chapter 5, verse 45. This was probably written in the 15th century, and more than one translation agree on their use of 'the Third Eye.' Any real Yogi can speak with authority on this (difficult to find a real yogi in USA), as well as any Zen Master. There is in fact an amazing center of consciousness we have, physically located just above the center of the eyebrows, in the center of the head. It is not just a 'third eye,' but even awareness must be described somehow... and 'seeing' is easy to understand. I urge you to practice yoga or Zen, and you will also know what is meant in the Bible when they say, 'You will be given the Morning Star.'
Very best wishes,
Re: Chakras and the Third Eye myth
________________________________________
Ps:
My teacher's teacher was Rishi Singh Gherwal, and I have most of his books. Privately printed, and meant really only for his students, they stand as a great reference to anyone seriously interested in success in yoga. Rishi was a very accomplished yogi, who taught in his ashram in Santa Barbara from about 1920 to 1965, when he passed. If you are interested, I will provide you with pdf versions of Rishi's books.
First, please go read the Siva Samhita, Chapter 5, verse 45. This was probably written in the 15th century, and more than one translation agree on their use of 'the Third Eye.'
I'm very familiar with it, and its many variants. There are translations based on translations, and the use of the term - when it's present in some copies - in no way coincides with the Theosophical meaning of the term. In the most recent translation by James Mallinson, the most important and purest for over eighty years, there is no Third Eye as it's meant in the West at all.
As I said above, the Theosophical third eye found its way back into Hindu thought and was incorporated into it around a hundred and ten years ago, when Hindu translators were keen to represent what they believed in western terms to make it more accessible to westerners. I've seen texts from the TM foundation and the Krishna groups where they talk about a third eye, but their meaning is not at all the same as the original idea within Shivaism, but it is very like Theosophy. The third eye in Shivaism is representative of different understandings entirely.
Any real Yogi can speak with authority on this (difficult to find a real yogi in USA), as well as any Zen Master.
It isn't the case that 'any real yogi/zen master' will talk about the third eye. In twenty five years study as a serious meditator, sixteen as a Buddhist, with the first couple of years in Shivaism, in fact all masters I've met (both Tibetan and Hindu) have ridiculed the western system of chakras and the third eye relentlessly, which is why I post about it here. The form of Buddhism I practise is Tantra, with many nods to this very text.
There are forms of Hatha yoga now that are so far removed from their original meaning and practises that they're pretty much solely representative of Theosophy, and not Hindu thought at all. If you meet any master who claims to be teaching you to open your third eye, he or she is following the Western Occult system of chakras, not the original.
"...For the sake of clarity and dispelling some confusion, we will make a simple “comparison” of this system with the one most commonly known in the West, which we can generically describe as the “New Age” chakra system..We will call this one the “Secondary” chakra system, as this appears to be the accepted term...Please remember that the two systems refer to entirely different philosophies, objectives and methods, so they are not really “equivalent”. As you can see, it is easy to “equate” the two systems, believing that just the names of the Chakras change, but they are quite different in philosophy, objectives and methods of accessing or "opening" them..."
Regarding the text itself:
The Siva Samhita: "The earliest known English translation is by Shri Chandra Vasu (1884, Lahore) in the series known as "The Sacred Books of the Hindus" The translation by Rai Bahadur and Srisa Chandra Vasu in 1914, also in the series known as "The Sacred Books of the Hindus", was the first translation to find a global audience. However, it omits certain sections (such as vajroli mudra) and is considered inaccurate by some. In 2007, James Mallinson made a new translation to address these issues.The new translation is based on the only available critical edition of the text — the one publIshed in 1999 by the Kaivalya Dham Yoga Research Institute."
James Mallinson's version of the text is the only one that interprets the original text without change or bias, and is now the standard work for all keen students. He has also taken pains to point out the problems with such an undertaking and that, as in some places the texts are contradictory and contain many later additions, even this translation isn't complete. However, he and his predecessor's checked several thousand variant readings of this text to arrive at a much more accurate translation. You might want to check out an excerpt at: http://yogavidya.com/Yoga/ShivaSamhita.pdf..."
The full text contains no mention at all of a Third Eye, or concepts that would lead you to believe that the text is talking about the western idea of the same. Remember that this text is the first to try to translate this text exactly as it was originally. The original simply calls it the 'Eye of Shiva'. Note that, unlike Theosophy, even here it isn't opened, and has no similarities to the WO version at all. It's also not inside the head, again a theosophical claim, but actually on the forehead. Remember too that this isn't the main chakra, as beleived by Theosophists.
Just as an exercise, take any one of Mallinson's translated verses and compare it to the many texts now claiming to be authentic Khundalini, very 'eye-opening'
I urge you to practice yoga or Zen,
Zen was derived from the tradition I practise.
and you will also know what is meant in the Bible when they say, 'You will be given the Morning Star.'
I don't believe that the bible contains any reference to the third eye of Theosophy or Hinduism. I appreciate that you may believe that, but I've seen no evidence of it personally.
Quote:
My teacher's teacher was Rishi Singh Gherwal, and I have most of his books. Privately printed, and meant really only for his students, they stand as a great reference to anyone seriously interested in success in yoga. Rishi was a very accomplished yogi, who taught in his ashram in Santa Barbara from about 1920 to 1965, when he passed. If you are interested, I will provide you with pdf versions of Rishi's books.
I would be very interested to read in them where Gherwal says that he agrees with Theosophy, as Gherwal was one of the main protestors at the Western Occult/Theosophical ideas of both their chakra system and their third-eye concept, whcih he disagreed with vehemently:
These are his words concerning this subject:
"...The harm to Yoga philosophy that has been done by misinformation thru the "Theosophist" Rev. C. W. Leadbeater is indeed very great. Most readers of Theosophical and Occult literature believe Rev. Leadbeater to be a friend to the Hindus, but after reading his book, "The Inner Life" and "The Chakras", I am forced to say by the information he has given, he is the greatest enemy of Yoga philosophy, and has given a bad name to Yoga..."
http://forum.grasscity.com/spirituality-philosophy/362630-chakras-third-eye-myth.html
COMMENTS
-